Title: World in The Balance, China revs up Director: Chris Schmidt Release year: 2004
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film looks primarily at the sustainability problems associated with China as it begins to industrialize and grow into a wealthy nation. China currently has the fastest growing economy in the world. It was once a billion poor people, but it is no longer a poor country and the consuming habits and industrial sectors of this country are contributing more and more too global crises. In particular the increased percentage of middle class or affluent people is a huge sustainability problem as they model themselves after the consumers of America. Currently China is home to seven of the world’s 10 most polluted cities.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Many of the sustainability problems that are presented within this film can be linked to growth and growing beyond our means. China as demonstrated in the narrative of the film is the epitome of how rampant growth can be a large sustainability problem. Mao Zedong’s “great leap forward” caused widespread famine in the 1970s, taking 30,000,000 lives during his vision of a cultural revolution. Then in 1979 there was the one child policy and China began to attempt to counteract the “race between the stork and the plow.” Then in the early 1980s there was a surprising communist policy implemented that essentially said “to get rich is glorious” and allowed the development of entrepreneurs within the communist system. China’s history is one of war and poverty but the past twenty years since this policy began to be encouraged has been characterized by a binge of industrial development without pollution regulations. Their economy has grown by roughly 8% every single year for the past twenty years and the average citizen’s income has quadrupled. The Chinese are searching for the “material” lives that have in the past been out of their reach. This economic growth has been coupled with large increase in things like passenger car purchasing and meat consumption. These trends all greatly increase the impact of the Chinese individual but are hard to counteract as they become symbols of the emerging middle classes’ individuality and success.
These cultural trends and the modern organization of this society have large ecological implications. By 2030 China is forecasted to match the United States for carbon emissions. China is set to become that largest personal vehicle market as well while producing cars at EURO 2 emissions standards which are now ten years old. Most of Europe is producing at EURO 5 standards and the United States has its own regulations which are even more stringent. Cars and the automobile industry is a pillar of their development as it crates very well paying jobs so the Chinese government is hesitant to intervene within the industry. They are faced with creating 15 million new jobs every year because of population increases. They are also destroying landscapes and cutting environmental corners to bring about infrastructure development as more and more people move from the countryside to the major cities. Over 100 million people have moved from urban countryside to major cities in recent history. This is the largest human relocation in recorded history. There have also been large redistributions of water as 1000 tons of water produces only $200 worth of crops or $14000 of industrial products. Much of the country is experiencing severe water shortages in the agricultural industry causing a significant food crisis. Overall it becomes very hard to bring about development at this rate in a sustainable fashion.
Many people in rural China still lack basic plumbing and electricity and the average rural farming family still survives with a $25 per month salary. This country has significant more development to achieve before it reaches a standard of living across the countryside that most Americans experience. This has to be meticulously planned and controlled so the entire world isn’t devastated by this culture achieving a reasonable standard of living.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
One part of the film I found very convincing was that when the U.S. tested air directly from the ocean it was discovered to contain pulses of industrial pollution even all the way across three thousand miles of ocean. These distant western United State cities are receiving the effects from Chinese pollution. Although this may not be a large problem for us it shows how vast the problems in China are and how they have a large potential to affect the world. Also there was a theme throughout the film that Chinese people desired to become consumers or models of the United States citizen. The United States has set the standard for development. This is very compelling as we have not only created problems for ourselves in the way we have developed but this development is perpetuating problems as countries like China attempt to live as we do. But how are we supposed to tell them they can’t?
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I think the film should have highlighted more of the solutions that are being implemented to solve some of these problems within China. It mentioned that some of the more polluting industrial factories are being shut down and reworked but provided little details. I took from the film that the government is aware of the issues that they are causing and with such a large source of power and wealth that they are developing I feel there must be some ideas brewing within the government to solve some of these issues.
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
I would be interested in knowing more statistics and numbers associated with the development in China. In particular more statistics that would help me develop further comparisons about how much they use compared to the United States or how fast they have been using stuff as well as forecasted pollution numbers and effects. I have heard some of the number quoting things like China alone will need more of many products than what is currently produced for the entire world. These types of statistics are very persuasive in summing up the effect China may have on global resource use and industries in the future.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film seemed primarily aimed at the United States consumer audience. It attempted to show the problems within China with a link to how they were influenced by the U.S. I think this film is unlikely to change the way these viewers think about and act on environmental problems. Some of the concepts in the film will spark interest among viewers but instead of feeling like they need to act on these environmental problems in China many will probably feel the desire to “point the finger” at China for the global warming problems and environmental problems of the world instead of attempting to reduce impacts within their own lives.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The great bulk of the problems that China is compounding were caused by industrialized now rich countries such as the United States. The film suggests intervention should possibly occur within these countries to limit their impact or help China develop with less impact. The burden shouldn’t be put on these poor developing countries. There are many problems both cultural and ecological in China but to a degree economic growth is needed within this area as much of the population lives in extreme poverty. They also point out the car industry as a specific point of intervention. Most likely any regulations on cars would be met as companies don’t want to miss out on the sales potential of the one billion plus market of China.
Alternatively though the government of China itself is also an obvious area of intervention, China is still ruled by the communist party which has little tolerance for dissent. Environmental movement brought about by the general population is unlikely. On the other hand if this same government chooses to take a stand against pollution and population growth this same trend could work in reverse and allow the government to get things done far faster.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
I do not think the film was very good in terms of bringing about action from the viewers. It seemed to target an American audience but gave the American viewer little to do in the way of solving these problems. It does highlight that Americans could reduce their impact to remove some of the burden that this development puts onto the world and set an example for the Chinese. I think the film should have targeted a more global audience or in particular a Chinese audience. The answer to many of these problems would be more easily solved through a global initiative in which China is a partner or from within the Chinese nation itself. Overall the film was informative but I think the direction in which it was taken could have been altered to further increase its environmental education value.
Director: Chris Schmidt
Release year: 2004
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film looks primarily at the sustainability problems associated with China as it begins to industrialize and grow into a wealthy nation. China currently has the fastest growing economy in the world. It was once a billion poor people, but it is no longer a poor country and the consuming habits and industrial sectors of this country are contributing more and more too global crises. In particular the increased percentage of middle class or affluent people is a huge sustainability problem as they model themselves after the consumers of America. Currently China is home to seven of the world’s 10 most polluted cities.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Many of the sustainability problems that are presented within this film can be linked to growth and growing beyond our means. China as demonstrated in the narrative of the film is the epitome of how rampant growth can be a large sustainability problem. Mao Zedong’s “great leap forward” caused widespread famine in the 1970s, taking 30,000,000 lives during his vision of a cultural revolution. Then in 1979 there was the one child policy and China began to attempt to counteract the “race between the stork and the plow.” Then in the early 1980s there was a surprising communist policy implemented that essentially said “to get rich is glorious” and allowed the development of entrepreneurs within the communist system. China’s history is one of war and poverty but the past twenty years since this policy began to be encouraged has been characterized by a binge of industrial development without pollution regulations. Their economy has grown by roughly 8% every single year for the past twenty years and the average citizen’s income has quadrupled. The Chinese are searching for the “material” lives that have in the past been out of their reach. This economic growth has been coupled with large increase in things like passenger car purchasing and meat consumption. These trends all greatly increase the impact of the Chinese individual but are hard to counteract as they become symbols of the emerging middle classes’ individuality and success.
These cultural trends and the modern organization of this society have large ecological implications. By 2030 China is forecasted to match the United States for carbon emissions. China is set to become that largest personal vehicle market as well while producing cars at EURO 2 emissions standards which are now ten years old. Most of Europe is producing at EURO 5 standards and the United States has its own regulations which are even more stringent. Cars and the automobile industry is a pillar of their development as it crates very well paying jobs so the Chinese government is hesitant to intervene within the industry. They are faced with creating 15 million new jobs every year because of population increases. They are also destroying landscapes and cutting environmental corners to bring about infrastructure development as more and more people move from the countryside to the major cities. Over 100 million people have moved from urban countryside to major cities in recent history. This is the largest human relocation in recorded history. There have also been large redistributions of water as 1000 tons of water produces only $200 worth of crops or $14000 of industrial products. Much of the country is experiencing severe water shortages in the agricultural industry causing a significant food crisis. Overall it becomes very hard to bring about development at this rate in a sustainable fashion.
Many people in rural China still lack basic plumbing and electricity and the average rural farming family still survives with a $25 per month salary. This country has significant more development to achieve before it reaches a standard of living across the countryside that most Americans experience. This has to be meticulously planned and controlled so the entire world isn’t devastated by this culture achieving a reasonable standard of living.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
One part of the film I found very convincing was that when the U.S. tested air directly from the ocean it was discovered to contain pulses of industrial pollution even all the way across three thousand miles of ocean. These distant western United State cities are receiving the effects from Chinese pollution. Although this may not be a large problem for us it shows how vast the problems in China are and how they have a large potential to affect the world. Also there was a theme throughout the film that Chinese people desired to become consumers or models of the United States citizen. The United States has set the standard for development. This is very compelling as we have not only created problems for ourselves in the way we have developed but this development is perpetuating problems as countries like China attempt to live as we do. But how are we supposed to tell them they can’t?
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I think the film should have highlighted more of the solutions that are being implemented to solve some of these problems within China. It mentioned that some of the more polluting industrial factories are being shut down and reworked but provided little details. I took from the film that the government is aware of the issues that they are causing and with such a large source of power and wealth that they are developing I feel there must be some ideas brewing within the government to solve some of these issues.
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
I would be interested in knowing more statistics and numbers associated with the development in China. In particular more statistics that would help me develop further comparisons about how much they use compared to the United States or how fast they have been using stuff as well as forecasted pollution numbers and effects. I have heard some of the number quoting things like China alone will need more of many products than what is currently produced for the entire world. These types of statistics are very persuasive in summing up the effect China may have on global resource use and industries in the future.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film seemed primarily aimed at the United States consumer audience. It attempted to show the problems within China with a link to how they were influenced by the U.S. I think this film is unlikely to change the way these viewers think about and act on environmental problems. Some of the concepts in the film will spark interest among viewers but instead of feeling like they need to act on these environmental problems in China many will probably feel the desire to “point the finger” at China for the global warming problems and environmental problems of the world instead of attempting to reduce impacts within their own lives.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The great bulk of the problems that China is compounding were caused by industrialized now rich countries such as the United States. The film suggests intervention should possibly occur within these countries to limit their impact or help China develop with less impact. The burden shouldn’t be put on these poor developing countries. There are many problems both cultural and ecological in China but to a degree economic growth is needed within this area as much of the population lives in extreme poverty. They also point out the car industry as a specific point of intervention. Most likely any regulations on cars would be met as companies don’t want to miss out on the sales potential of the one billion plus market of China.
Alternatively though the government of China itself is also an obvious area of intervention, China is still ruled by the communist party which has little tolerance for dissent. Environmental movement brought about by the general population is unlikely. On the other hand if this same government chooses to take a stand against pollution and population growth this same trend could work in reverse and allow the government to get things done far faster.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
I do not think the film was very good in terms of bringing about action from the viewers. It seemed to target an American audience but gave the American viewer little to do in the way of solving these problems. It does highlight that Americans could reduce their impact to remove some of the burden that this development puts onto the world and set an example for the Chinese. I think the film should have targeted a more global audience or in particular a Chinese audience. The answer to many of these problems would be more easily solved through a global initiative in which China is a partner or from within the Chinese nation itself. Overall the film was informative but I think the direction in which it was taken could have been altered to further increase its environmental education value.